Sony AX2000 and Fx7: shots in full light: what is better?
 

Hi, I'm using Sony FX7 (PAL) and now I'd like to replace it with a better a camera. I will use it with full light of day only.
Can you tell me if it will give better image quality ... or will it unobserved? I'd like to get news by a guy using both. I like more Sony EX1 is better but it is heavier and larger.... I don't like it. ;)
Thanks

Adriano:

The images made by the AX2000 under the best light conditions are more detailed and less noisy than those made by the FX7 under analogous conditions.

However, the difference depends on how you will observe the footage: the bigger your TV screen size or the closer you are from the screen, the more evident will be this difference.

The FX7 is the consumer V1, isn't it? The AX2k is the consumer Z5. The latter has chips that have 78% more surface area, so with that fact alone I'd say that it would be a change that you'd notice.

The FX7 has a very limited wide-angle coverage wheras the AX2k sees noticeably wider. If you had to use a wide converter with the FX7 then the AX2k would look even better.

Let's take a scale of 1 to 10. If the FX7 gives a 5 picture quality then I'd rate the AX2k as a 6.5 and the EX1 as a 10.

tom.

AX2000 is the consumer NX5U. FX1000 is the consumer Z5. Though the AX2000 and NX5 share lots with the Z5.

Ron Evans

Arkady has both of the cameras so his opinion should be noted also his locale certainly qualifies as somewhere with the "full light of day"
I've got an FX7 and a HC1 and a CX550v
Surprisingly the old 2005 HDR-HC1 produces very nice footage in the full light of day but lacks internal ND as does the CX550(for hand held work, nothing beats this little camera)
The FX1000 retains your tape based workflow and is just a tad larger than the your current camera with higher image quality from 3 - 1/3' cmos as opposed to the fx7's 3 - 1/4" cmos for sure and 3 internal ND filters for really sunny Roman Days and a super lense
The fears I had of AVCHD based work flow have been largely unfounded as pertains to blu-ray disc production so the ax2000 might be for you

I have owned both a Z5 and NX5, so will register a vote for the AX2000 (being similar to the NX5). The modern AVCHD codecs coming out of Sony (and probably anywhere now) just totally crush HDV for performance under any kind of stress. Got high detail *and* motion? You'll be *much* happier with AVCHD. Much. I certainly am. I've carried both the Z5 and NX5 with me on walks through the woods in fall while on my annual deer hunt. Leafless twigs and undergrowth extending to infinity in all directions. When played back on a big TV, the HDV, while crisp and beautiful during period of relative stillness, was brimming with nasty-looking artifacts and patches of blurriness when I walked. And the Z5 has a very mature HDV codec inside. This last fall, I did the exact same thing with the NX5. It looked *awesome*. Crisp the whole time with virtually no visible artifacting until I paused and stepped through frame by frame.

For the best-looking image under all kinds of conditions, it's no contest, IMO.

Best,
Aaron

They sure do have internal ND filtration, it's just that you have no (manual) control over when it's used and how much ND is put into the light path.

Yes, I remember, back in 2005 it was a very warmly discussion about the alleged internal ND filters in the HDR-HC1 here at DV Info forum.

As it was observed, being in the manual mode the HC1 demonstrated a strange behavior: in the middle range of the exposure control from notch 6 through 13 the settings were the same, always F4 and 0dB gain, but the picture was changing in intensity. So, the majority of those who took part in the discussion came to the conclusion that it was ND filter (maybe, two) involved.

But I also recollect, that it was one guy – unfortunately I remember only his first name, Lorin – (or it was a pseudonym?), who told that it could be not ND but the sliding bit ranges used by the camera out of the available 14 bits. He even presented the table explained in detail his theory.

Thus, the mystery of HC1 internal ND filters wasn’t solved, I may say.

It'[s easily solved. Zoom to telephoto, have the camera in manual exposure and look down into that lens with a little LED torch. Turn the exposure dial and watch the NDs flop in and out. You think you're changing the aperture, but no.

You can't change exposure by mucking about with bit depth. The whole point of using ND filters is to keep you well away from diffraction blur - and that always occurs at small apertures.

Cameras with ¼" chips should never be allowed to shoot at smaller apertures than f/4, and ½" cameras can go to f/6 or so.

tom.

So, Lorin wasn’t right. Shame, his theory looked so fascinating…

I have to agree with Aaron. I moved to the NX5U because my XR500 was making my FX1 look like the consumer camera. There is little contest in comparing HDV to the high bit rate AVCHD and full1920x1080. Having gone tapeless I would not go back.

You do have to really be careful about backups though as there is no tape to go back to once you clean off the files!!! I have moved to backup with LTO3 data backup tape just like the computer data centers. I have a Quantum LTO3 HH deck cost about the same as a mid range AVCHD cam and the 400G tapes are $25 each with enough backup time for almost 40 hours of AVCHD. I use Retrospect software for the backup.

Ron

Back-up's the thing isn't it. With HDV you'd Keep the tape, make dvds from the tape ..but now what? A typical event will generate 10 or more hours of video. Last gig produced 180gb shot with a cx550 using the next to highest bitrate so what do you do to store that amount ongoing? Now I'm going to capture from the hdmi port and it will triple the storage requirements for the same event. thankfully hdd prices are reasonable nowadays but what about longevity, Discs will fail I'm told. No doubt bright minds are busy making new methods of storage and one day it will no longer be an issue , taking with it the hotly debated comression discussions

How about downconverting HD to HDV and archiving on cheap tapes as before? OK, you've lost some quality but not a lot.

yes I've thought of down converting but I'm lazy and it's a lot of stuff.
Also thought about burning Bluray discs and might yet

But surely everyone here sees tape as being far more permanent than HDD and BDs?